Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁ésh₂r̥

Italic < *h₁sh₂én+ǵʰu+ens, possibly meaning something like "pouring" or "flowing blood"? Dghmonwiskos (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it does makes more sense than the etymon given in the entry, both semantically and phonologically. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 00:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I recall, "blood" + "living" is also seen in another PIE compound word for internal human blood, so semantically, has merit, but  would seem to fit better morphologically. --Victar (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 🇨🇬 requires *-g(ʷ)-, and actually, according to Eichner's Law, *ē was not subject to coloring, so 🇨🇬 > 🇨🇬 might check out. --Victar (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Though Eichner's Law has been called into question, given that most of it's basis is Hittite's sequences "eḫ" and "ḫe" as in meḫur "time". I think by then, people didn't know yet that PIE diphthongs such as *ey, *oy and (h₂)ay, also yielded "e" in Hittite, so their only explanation was that PIE ē wasn't coloured. In case you want some more info, Kloekhorst argues against it here, and in his etymological dictionary too. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 02:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the more Kloekhorst I read, the less I believe. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 03:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, Eichner's Law certainly isn't uniformly agreed upon, and I don't know how or if it functioned in Hittite, but quite a few academics, like Kümmel, Rix, Adams, still support it. --Victar (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)